tv [untitled] June 17, 2012 4:00am-4:30am PDT
>> it says the maximum planning code and it shows by highlighting what is being chipped away. my question is, would that have been on its face approveable? that maximum build out? >> it would comply with the terms of the code on a cursory review. many of the guidelines would be addressed. i am inclined to say based on the review that not all the requirements of the guidelines would be met, there are provisions relating to a matching or somewhat matching light wells. some of that the yellow areas
are those matching light wells. while it is difficult to address that the hypothetical question, my best response would be that if the project were to be filed will -- with structures in that area, we would be less than inclined to recommend to the commission approve the project. >> is there any public comment on this item? please step forward. mix -- i have lived in san francisco 20 years. my wife and i have been neighbors 15 years. my daughter is nine years old.
i spoke in support of them and their daughter at the dr hearing. what happened the week proceeding is supervisor ferrel was speaking on a problem we have throughout the city and in the marino where a lot of families with young children, we lose them from their neighborhood because there have grown -- they outgrow their flats. it happens with the families in our neighborhoods with young kids before they reach age 5. the families tend to move out if they cannot expand their homes or they have a problem with the schools. i spoke in support of this project not only because i like the family and the project, but it is one more family we do not want to lose because they and outgrow their flat and have to leave because they cannot expand. at the hearing, the
commissioners also underscored that in their support of this project, that growing young families like this need the ability to grow within their homes, within reason. it was something that i had mentioned, it had been focused on that week in the city in part of the reason why they supported the project. i am here to say that as one neighbor who, our bedroom windows, are back patio, our back yard, we can see the back of this house. it is something i am going to see throughout construction and when it is done, and we support this project. president hwang: is there any other public comment? we will take rebuttals starting with the appellant.
>> first off, there have been no compromises to accommodate us. the original plans were drawn in such a way that the planning department was never going to approve them. they were matched up against both sides. then the planning department asked them to make the setbacks in changes and from that, we are getting they have made accommodations. we have not asked for any specific accommodations other than, please modify your plan so we can have more privacy. no further modifications were made. we have these drawn to show they can be done without impact to their project. this argument about growing
families, they already have the same square footage they will have once this project is done. they are basically doubling the size. unless they are planning to live in the units, the addition of square footage is minimal. they could have developed to down to have gained the same amount of square footage they will have after this project. i feel that is a disingenuous argument in this case. the feeling of being boxed in, i think he made light of it by saying it was only going to be 3 feet. when we walked into our backyard, it is open. we can see out into the green space. there is going to be a proper the wall up until about here.
so we are feeling encroached on all sides and would really appreciate if they could back up a little bit to give us some breathing room. so we do not suffer such a negative impact. it is nothing that they have done to accommodate us. we have not, we are not coming at the last minute to throw branches in the process. we can voice our concerns because we got off to a rocky start for our neighborhood meeting. unfortunately, the project's sponsors called our neighbor a liar. it got intense. we want to use this process to take the emotion out of it and be heard. are there any que>> thank you fe
in subsequent months, which worked diligently with the planning department for the benefit of the neighbor. i updated the neighbor with new plans back in june 2011. a month before the hearing and four months after the process, the neighbor sunday the request. after many e-mail communications with a neighbor, i send them to date my architect and i could meet. no response. tehe d.r. commissioner ruled in our favor. the neighbor's lawyer contacted my are contested -- my architect.
these white walls were built to give the neighbors more light than air. this made the project more difficult. we told people where we were willing to cross the windows in an effort to provide a confession to the neighbors. they never responded to our offer, again. this same month, the day requested access to our rules. in neighborly fashion, we granted full access. two years into the process, they are now appealing kafka we are a family trying to build family oriented units, making extreme concessions for our neighbor's benefit if, only to feel trampled on. thank you very much. i am all done. >> thank you. do you have any questions?
>> can you explain what you do it is the concessions -- concessions you gave? i agree keepnot think i have a d understanding of what the concessions were. >> we do not pretend week believe we could build to this. i'm showing you the envelops so you can understand we are not building to that. neighbors grow around terms like we are massing of properties. that line is there lightly for you to understand in context. the residential design guidelines advocate for the sword of mirroring. there are no specific numerical guidelines for that. in our case, a 15-foot long light well at the third floor would be sort of appropriate.
he felt like a 10-foot wide long would be prepared we provided a 15-foot. in typical scale, you see a light well 15-feet long in most properties. additionally, we provided a further light well down here at the second floor. this was not requested by the resentful design team. we felt like,, since we were chipping down there, we might as well go a little further. that was addressing a concern for one of the other filers who was in the unit alow them who did not file this appeal. we are trying to address multiple people's concerns. in the fourth floor, we set the entire plan house back 3 feet. creating basically a light well along that side, as well. the entire side of the property is a setback. not specifically required coppi, but we felt like since we
already providing it, it made more sense to continue and try to allow more sun at various times of the day into the light well windows. additionally, we cut off his back corner here to limit that kind of boxing in feeling that they were alluding to. >> can you show us on the diagram where the light wells are? >> it does not show that. >> can you approximate where they are? >> it may be better to show you a planned deal. -- plan view. if that would be ok. ok. >> which page? >> sheeit says third floor plant
the top of the sheet. we were, measuring the best we could the exact location of the light wells and the windows. they are unloaded here -- they are noted here. 4 feet in this location. our light well here, our 15-foot light well on the third floor, mirrors the shower portion. we wind blows up to try to give them the best benefit for the smallest part of their light well. on this upper floor plan, you can see the entire side wall of our fourth floor is set back to make a defacto light while all the way along, clearly foley mirrori in that case. i understand they are used to looking out the cross -- out
across our property. it is ultimately a light well condition. we are trying to be sympathetic to a mirrored light wall condition. >> the balcony that was referenced, where is that? >> at the fourth floor, at the rear here, this is the roof deck. this is the defacto yard for the upper unit. the upper unit has no access to the rear yard. this is the yard. could this is where her daughter will ride her tricycle in 16 months. i think that is what they are referring to. the railing along here. three feedback from the property lines. it is already set back. they have privacy concerns about that railing looked across to these windows over here. we had actually originally proposed that to be a solid wall off to the required 40 foot height. planning department decided it
would be better to be in open railing to allow light. it is a classic san francisco privacy light trade-off conditions. if you feel like it would be better to go back to a solid wall, we woulit would make no difference to us. their language was a little bit fuzzy, but my understanding was they are asking us to push this railing back further. it is already 3 feet off the property line, and they want us to push it back further so you cannot stand this close to that. maybe to provide some planting there. that is a very disruptive and off or change for us to make as you can see in a plan. if the stairs come up here too a little landing with a door that goes right out to the deck, and the door that goes into the master bedroom. if we push this railing over, this door will not work any longer. the only way to get through the deck would be through the
bedroom. think of this as the rear yard. this the family play guard. this is the public, open space for this unit. it is not a good plan for us to have to walk through a bedroom to get to that. is important to us to keep that door in place there. we would be happy to make that into a solid wall if they even want us to put it up a certain height. that is also fine with us. it is really their choice. >> where there planter's? >> those are the planters. that was the compromise made. there was concern about people standing at the roof deck. because people being able to look down the rear yard. the initial suggestion was to move the railing back.
we went through that and instead propose a substantial planter in that location which would have the same effect. it would keep the back from the railing, but without having this ugly piece of on serviceable roads beyond the railing. that was the compromise we made in that location. considering this as the effective rear yard for this unit, we do not montt to make it any smaller. it will not be useful. thank you. >> potential modifications, one earlier was proposed, across the windows, and then the second one here is you would be open to replacing the open rail to solid wall or something that would adjust privacy but then the trade-offs would be light.
>> yes, absolutely. >> was there anything else for the two potential areas that would you -- that you would be willing today to modify? >> yes we could make those adjustments recently. >> ok, thank you. >> thank you. anything further from planning? ok. commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i will start. rather than discuss our debt -- how dense our city is, one of the more problematic patterns of our city is the fact that we have zero property lines.
this has created in my opinion more problems ever than front, rear, backs, etc. the problem with the property line is not only bthe light wel, but it is usually a correlation with the circulation elements. therefore, the pattern of how does occur affects the overall development cox in this particular. -- development. in this particular instance, i see that having light wells on both sides is extremely
difficult and represents a situation against the rights of the property owners. i am understand the concerns with light, however, this occurs at a zero property light and therefore i am not prepared to modify the situation that much. >> i feel quite the modifications that are offered tonight sound reasonable. i think the proposal that was presented at the start of the hearing is a little -- i mean, not that it is too late -- but i
think it does put -- i think this is a process, and an important one, to attempt to utilize for purposes of resolving disputes and that is why we are here. i think to present a complex proposal on a day for -- without an opportunity for the permit holder to review it and analyze it and potentially come to some position on it, it is unfair and it is not really the most offensive -- most effective use of this project -- process. i am all for people getting together, but i like outreach before projects. i heard that was done here, whether that turned into a productive conversation -- it sounds like it did not for whatever reason -- but i think the proposal that was presented could not really be given undue attention today -- due attention
today. i heard also from the project's sponsors that this has been an ongoing situation for some time now, so i am happy to hear that modifications are being offered today, too. that shows a certain level of effort. my inclination now is to go with what you can get there or, if everyone is willing to look carefully at the proposal you made, then that would be fine. but i do not know that everyone will be willing to do that today. >> i agree. it is certainly not a proposal we could work with to handle this evening. is there anything on that upper floor with the railing and the open rail link you can suggest? that would help you besides, moving it 3 feet in?
obviously, i see their point about the staircase coming out there and opening up. there are two entries, but one through a bedroom. your proposed moving it in 3 feet. are there alternatives like swapping some of this planter and putting in a light well? i think your case is more compelling than others we have heard tonight in that you have enjoyed this year for years, but recognizing somebody could build their is something we have to balance. >> i think we would be willing to work with the architect. i do not know what to suggest off the top of my head. what we do whanot want is a downward you. -- view. usually light wells are in-arms and hallways. we have an unusual situation.
it is living area. i do not know. if they are willing to do something, to help, with the privacy issue. we are just disappointed with a relatively minor change to their plan that could make a big difference to us. the architect assured us that it was not expensive for a major change to the plan. >> you mean the floor -- >> yes. to stack the stairs. he said it should not be a major impact. we have to -- >> it is clearly an impact. it is a reconfiguration of a lot of their space. that is tough to throw on us all at the last minute. we are inclined to grab onto some of the small changes you proposed like the frosted windows.
>> the other question was whether that rail is open rail vs solid. what would you prefer? more light or less privacy? >> you take off some of bacthe planter. at the rear, you would like to look out on your back yard. would you rather that kind of moved over? >> i do not know. i cannot visualize it. i cannot visualize it. i guess we will work with him and see what we can come up with. as long as they are willing to work with us. >> i encourage you to work on the back deck. there could be some modifications. that is the only light well. that led well is critical to them.
having a glass rail they'll give you light -- repail fare will give you like. -- there will give you light. >> we would really like to resolve this tonight. has been almost a year. we need to move on from this. i requested we just try to find a solution right now, here, so that we can move on. >> i think we are willing to go forward. we all seem like decent folks getting along in good faith trying to work something out. i would just encourage you to work together. we would approve this program. >> yes, i think we need to make it final tonight. >> i would not make any
adjustment and . >> or we could do a solid railing to 42 inches + a trellis to whenever height they prefer. those are the offers on the table. and definitely defrosted. we were always planning to do that. we knew that was the right thing to do. >> i have to make a decision right now. >> we would like to appear inclination, at least. >> i think the privacy in this case, because it is our daughter's bedroom. sun room, we only have one bedroom. if she is in that sun room.
>> privacy. ok. >> i think privacy, prefer. >> solid wall is 42 inches. would you like a trellis above that? >> i guess so. >> we will work with you about what material that will be. i know, it is hard. >> i guess so. ok. >> if you do not want, we will scrap it carrie. >> if we say there is one and there is not, we will not be signing off paris.
>> the same thing we did on the other one pair and a six-foot. >> the other one? >> what time is it? >> we definitely do not want trellis. >> our second wedding will be on your debt. is that all right? [laughter] >> is there a motion? >> go ahead. >> unless the commissioner wants to speak. >> the solid rel. that would go upper 6 feet, minimum. >> for what distance? >> open rail.